Ben Holmes - Proven Liar and Retard...

[Bud]

Ben recently wrote this...

"And, of course, we have Carolyn Arnold, who reports seeing LHO around 12:15 in the 2nd floor lunchroom. (CD 5 pg 41)"

Here is Commission Document 5, page 41...

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10406#relPageId=44&tab=page

Notice that in what Ben cited Arnold isn`t sure it was Oswald she saw, and that the event took place on the first floor.

Will Ben retract this blatant lie?

[Ben Holmes]

On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 12:13:15 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:

By the title of this thread, you've already admitted that you've lost the debate. Ad hominem cannot replace the evidence... which you're clearly unfamiliar with.

What "lie?"

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/B%20Disk/Bronson%20Charles/Item%2027.pdf

I'm quite sure that dishonest liars such as believers are don't understand the simple concepts of how to judge between conflicting evidence.

But it's quite clear indeed that Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald in the second floor lunchroom between 12:15-12:25.

This means that the Warren Commission lied.

It's really just that simple.

Even if the FBI hadn't "made a mistake" in documenting Arnold's statements, THAT WOULD STILL PLACE OSWALD AS ***NOT*** ON THE 6TH FLOOR.

Watch as "Bud" refuses to retract his lie... (and refuse to explain why Carolyn Arnold was not called to testify)

[Bud]

On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 4:07:13 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 12:13:15 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
>
> By the title of this thread, you've already admitted that you've lost the debate. Ad hominem cannot replace the evidence... which you're clearly unfamiliar with.
>
>
> > Ben recently wrote this...
> >
> > "And, of course, we have Carolyn Arnold, who reports seeing LHO around 12:15 in the 2nd floor lunchroom. (CD 5 pg 41)"
> >
> > Here is Commission Document 5, page 41...
> >
> > http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10406#relPageId=44&tab=page
> >
> > Notice that in what Ben cited Arnold isn`t sure it was Oswald she saw, and that the event took place on the first floor.
> >
> > Will Ben retract this blatant lie?
>
> What "lie?"

Lurkers, clearly Ben lied. The cite he gave was the one I posted. In the source he cited Arnold said the sighting of the person she wasn`t sure was Oswald occurred on the first floor. Ben actually told two lies referencing that source, the location the supposed sighting took place and that Arnold stated it was Oswald she saw.

> http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/B%20Disk/Bronson%20Charles/Item%2027.pdf

Lurkers, is Ben serious with this? 1978? Pretty sure the Warren Commission had wrapped up their investigation before then.

> I'm quite sure that dishonest liars such as believers are don't understand the simple concepts of how to judge between conflicting evidence.

Lurkers, Ben trying hard to misdirect here. It is quite simple. Ben represented Commission Document 5, page 41 to contain certain information. It does not.

> But it's quite clear indeed that Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald in the second floor lunchroom between 12:15-12:25.
>
> This means that the Warren Commission lied.

Lurkers, what it means is Ben lied. He said that CD 5, page 41 contained information it does not contain. Now he is trying to misdirect elsewhere.

> It's really just that simple.
>
> Even if the FBI hadn't "made a mistake" in documenting Arnold's statements, THAT WOULD STILL PLACE OSWALD AS ***NOT*** ON THE 6TH FLOOR.
>
> Watch as "Bud" refuses to retract his lie... (and refuse to explain why Carolyn Arnold was not called to testify)

Lurkers, Ben is thrashing about try to obscure the fact that he lied about the information that could be found in CD 5, page 41.

I predict Ben will never admit that CD 5, page 41 does not contain the information he represented it to contain.

[Ben Holmes]

On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 1:40:14 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 4:07:13 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 12:13:15 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> >
> > By the title of this thread, you've already admitted that you've lost the debate. Ad hominem cannot replace the evidence... which you're clearly unfamiliar with.
> >
> >
> > > Ben recently wrote this...
> > >
> > > "And, of course, we have Carolyn Arnold, who reports seeing LHO around 12:15 in the 2nd floor lunchroom. (CD 5 pg 41)"
> > >
> > > Here is Commission Document 5, page 41...
> > >
> > > http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10406#relPageId=44&tab=page
> > >
> > > Notice that in what Ben cited Arnold isn`t sure it was Oswald she saw, and that the event took place on the first floor.
> > >
> > > Will Ben retract this blatant lie?
> >
> > What "lie?"
>
> Lurkers, clearly Ben lied. The cite he gave was the one I posted. In the source he cited Arnold said the sighting of the person she wasn`t sure was Oswald occurred on the first floor. Ben actually told two lies referencing that source, the location the supposed sighting took place and that Arnold stated it was Oswald she saw.

I could easily have given multiple cites...

The *TRUTH* is - Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald after 11:55 A.M.

I gave the EXACT SAME CITE THAT THE WARREN COMMISSION HAD.

That's a fact, no matter how much you want to whine about it.

> http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/B%20Disk/Bronson%20Charles/Item%2027.pdf
>
> Lurkers, is Ben serious with this? 1978? Pretty sure the Warren Commission had wrapped up their investigation before then.

Of course! That's why I gave the cite that the Warren Commission knew about, and lied about. But now you're upset that I provided THE MOST ACCURATE AND CREDIBLE INFORMATION on the topic.

Nor did I hear you say ONE SINGLE WORD when Mark cited a 1979 source, so you have zero credibility.

And 1978 is the first time we heard from Carolyn Arnold, and not from a biased source that **MANY** eyewitnesses insist got their statements wrong.

It's *YOUR PROBLEM*, not mine - that the Warren Commission failed to get Carolyn Arnold's testimony.

A fact that you've STILL not explained...

Nor your cowardice at pointing out a 1979 cite by Mark.

> > I'm quite sure that dishonest liars such as believers are don't understand the simple concepts of how to judge between conflicting evidence.
>
> Lurkers, Ben trying hard to misdirect here. It is quite simple. Ben represented Commission Document 5, page 41 to contain certain information. It does not.

It contained *ALL THE INFORMATION IT NEEDED TO CONTAIN* to prove that the Warren Commission lied.

If I *had* cited the more accurate, and later citation - you'd be whining that the Warren Commission didn't have that information.

So you're quite despicable, "Bud."


Amusingly, despite FAR STRONGER AND MORE CREDIBLE EVIDENCE than you have right here in trying to impugn my statements, you still refuse to acknowledge that the Warren Commission lied.

But perhaps this is just an example of one liar covering for another...

> > But it's quite clear indeed that Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald in the second floor lunchroom between 12:15-12:25.
> >
> > This means that the Warren Commission lied.
>
> Lurkers, what it means is Ben lied. He said that CD 5, page 41 contained information it does not contain. Now he is trying to misdirect elsewhere.

The cite was what the Warren Commission had - it was in DIRECT CONFLICT with what they stated.

> > It's really just that simple.
> >
> > Even if the FBI hadn't "made a mistake" in documenting Arnold's statements, THAT WOULD STILL PLACE OSWALD AS ***NOT*** ON THE 6TH FLOOR.
> >
> > Watch as "Bud" refuses to retract his lie... (and refuse to explain why Carolyn Arnold was not called to testify)
>
> Lurkers, Ben is thrashing about try to obscure the fact that he lied about the information that could be found in CD 5, page 41.

Yep... what did I tell you!!

Bud is an abject coward.

> I predict Ben will never admit that CD 5, page 41 does not contain the information he represented it to contain.

It contained PRECISELY ENOUGH INFORMATION to label the Warren Commission liars...

You just HATE the fact that I presented the most up-to-date and credible information.

Indeed, believers as a general rule just HATE the evidence in this case...

[Bud]

On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 6:51:40 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 1:40:14 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 4:07:13 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 12:13:15 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > >
> > > By the title of this thread, you've already admitted that you've lost the debate. Ad hominem cannot replace the evidence... which you're clearly unfamiliar with.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Ben recently wrote this...
> > > >
> > > > "And, of course, we have Carolyn Arnold, who reports seeing LHO around 12:15 in the 2nd floor lunchroom. (CD 5 pg 41)"
> > > >
> > > > Here is Commission Document 5, page 41...
> > > >
> > > > http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10406#relPageId=44&tab=page
> > > >
> > > > Notice that in what Ben cited Arnold isn`t sure it was Oswald she saw, and that the event took place on the first floor.
> > > >
> > > > Will Ben retract this blatant lie?
> > >
> > > What "lie?"
> >
> > Lurkers, clearly Ben lied. The cite he gave was the one I posted. In the source he cited Arnold said the sighting of the person she wasn`t sure was Oswald occurred on the first floor. Ben actually told two lies referencing that source, the location the supposed sighting took place and that Arnold stated it was Oswald she saw.
>
>
> I could easily have given multiple cites...

Lurkers, Ben should have opted for accuracy rather than quantity.

> The *TRUTH* is - Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald after 11:55 A.M.

Lurkers, Ben is desperately trying to misdirect.

> I gave the EXACT SAME CITE THAT THE WARREN COMMISSION HAD.
>
> That's a fact, no matter how much you want to whine about it.

Lurkers, the only fact under consideration here is whether Ben lied when he said this...

"And, of course, we have Carolyn Arnold, who reports seeing LHO around 12:15 in the 2nd floor lunchroom. (CD 5 pg 41)"

The answer is clearly yes, the source he cited does not say either "2nd floor lunchroom" or that Arnold was sure it was Oswald.

I asked Ben twice to check his cite and he decided to double down rather than correct his mistake. Since he stuck with his untrue words after it was brought to his attention they were untrue there is nothing left but to label them as lies.

> > http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/B%20Disk/Bronson%20Charles/Item%2027.pdf
> >
> > Lurkers, is Ben serious with this? 1978? Pretty sure the Warren Commission had wrapped up their investigation before then.
>
> Of course! That's why I gave the cite that the Warren Commission knew about, and lied about. But now you're upset that I provided THE MOST ACCURATE AND CREDIBLE INFORMATION on the topic.

> Nor did I hear you say ONE SINGLE WORD when Mark cited a 1979 source, so you have zero credibility.

It isn`t the problem of the date, lurkers. If Ben would have used the correct cite to back up his contention we wouldn`t have the pleasure of watching Ben dance now. He should have cited this newspaper article and not CD 5, page 41 to back up his contentions. All I am doing here is exploiting a weakness in Ben`s character that prevents him from admitting he was wrong.
Normally I would never be such an asshole as to make a big deal out of a such a trivial point, but look at all the posts he started about the loading of an automatic issue.

> And 1978 is the first time we heard from Carolyn Arnold, and not from a biased source that **MANY** eyewitnesses insist got their statements wrong.
>
> It's *YOUR PROBLEM*, not mine - that the Warren Commission failed to get Carolyn Arnold's testimony.
>
> A fact that you've STILL not explained...
>
> Nor your cowardice at pointing out a 1979 cite by Mark.
>
>
> > > I'm quite sure that dishonest liars such as believers are don't understand the simple concepts of how to judge between conflicting evidence.
> >
> > Lurkers, Ben trying hard to misdirect here. It is quite simple. Ben represented Commission Document 5, page 41 to contain certain information. It does not.
>
> It contained *ALL THE INFORMATION IT NEEDED TO CONTAIN* to prove that the Warren Commission lied.
>
> If I *had* cited the more accurate, and later citation - you'd be whining that the Warren Commission didn't have that information.

Lurkers, how is it "whining" to point out the truth?

> So you're quite despicable, "Bud."
>
>
> Amusingly, despite FAR STRONGER AND MORE CREDIBLE EVIDENCE than you have right here in trying to impugn my statements, you still refuse to acknowledge that the Warren Commission lied.
>
> But perhaps this is just an example of one liar covering for another...
>
>
> > > But it's quite clear indeed that Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald in the second floor lunchroom between 12:15-12:25.
> > >
> > > This means that the Warren Commission lied.
> >
> > Lurkers, what it means is Ben lied. He said that CD 5, page 41 contained information it does not contain. Now he is trying to misdirect elsewhere.
>
>
> The cite was what the Warren Commission had - it was in DIRECT CONFLICT with what they stated.
>
>
>
> > > It's really just that simple.
> > >
> > > Even if the FBI hadn't "made a mistake" in documenting Arnold's statements, THAT WOULD STILL PLACE OSWALD AS ***NOT*** ON THE 6TH FLOOR.
> > >
> > > Watch as "Bud" refuses to retract his lie... (and refuse to explain why Carolyn Arnold was not called to testify)
> >
> > Lurkers, Ben is thrashing about try to obscure the fact that he lied about the information that could be found in CD 5, page 41.
>
> Yep... what did I tell you!!
>
> Bud is an abject coward.
>
> > I predict Ben will never admit that CD 5, page 41 does not contain the information he represented it to contain.
>
> It contained PRECISELY ENOUGH INFORMATION to label the Warren Commission liars...

Lurkers, DID BEN`S CITE CONTAIN THE INFORMATION BEN REPRESENTED IT TO CONTAIN?

> You just HATE the fact that I presented the most up-to-date and credible information.
>
> Indeed, believers as a general rule just HATE the evidence in this case...

My crystal ball is working perfectly.

[Ben Holmes]

On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 4:41:28 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 6:51:40 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 1:40:14 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 4:07:13 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 12:13:15 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > >
> > > > By the title of this thread, you've already admitted that you've lost the debate. Ad hominem cannot replace the evidence... which you're clearly unfamiliar with.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Ben recently wrote this...
> > > > >
> > > > > "And, of course, we have Carolyn Arnold, who reports seeing LHO around 12:15 in the 2nd floor lunchroom. (CD 5 pg 41)"
> > > > >
> > > > > Here is Commission Document 5, page 41...
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10406#relPageId=44&tab=page
> > > > >
> > > > > Notice that in what Ben cited Arnold isn`t sure it was Oswald she saw, and that the event took place on the first floor.
> > > > >
> > > > > Will Ben retract this blatant lie?
> > > >
> > > > What "lie?"
> > >
> > > Lurkers, clearly Ben lied. The cite he gave was the one I posted. In the source he cited Arnold said the sighting of the person she wasn`t sure was Oswald occurred on the first floor. Ben actually told two lies referencing that source, the location the supposed sighting took place and that Arnold stated it was Oswald she saw.
> >
> >
> > I could easily have given multiple cites...
>
> Lurkers, Ben should have opted for accuracy rather than quantity.

And actually, I provably *DID*.

I reported the facts accurately, and the cite, while not completely accurate, WAS MORE THAN ENOUGH TO PROVE THAT THE WARREN COMMISSION LIED.

And was the *ONLY* cite I could give to prove the Warren Commission lied.

You lose!

[Ben Holmes]

Interestingly, David Von Pein is now citing this thread, even though he's too gutless to actually respond here.

WHY IS THAT, DAVID???

WHY ARE YOU SO AFRAID TO DEAL WITH THE EVIDENCE PROVING THAT THE WARREN COMMISSION LIED?